Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by abooch, Jan 15, 2013.
Thinking about upgrading.. Is the difference that much noticeable?
The HR24 menus and stuff might be a bit speedier, but otherwise they're functionally equivalent. And don't try to get an HR24 from DirecTV because they can't guarantee a specific model. You would have to get from a satellite dealer, like Solid Signal.
I have both models. The HR23 is the oldest and my most used unit. It is in the den and runs about 11 hours per day. The HR24 is in the bedroom / office where I watch the stock market and it is on about 4 hours per day.
The 24 is noticably faster than the 23 but it is not enough difference for me to go to the effort of swapping the locations of each of them.
Changing channels is about a second quicker on the 24. Other than that I do not see any difference.
The HR24 is smaller, faster, and nicer looking (imo).
My HR24-500 is definitely Faster in every respect especially when it comes to bringing up the Guide and Surfing thru it.
But, but, but, they're functionally equivalent?... :lol:
Seriously, how can that tired, false statement still be used?
Because that's how DirecTV treats them. No argument from me that it's not really true, but good luck convincing DirecTV to treat them otherwise.
I think what's meant is that there are no functions on the HR24 that are not also on the HR23. Having had both, I agree that the HR24 is quite a bit zippier.
For whatever reason, DIRECTV has one entry for 2-tuner DVRs and I suspect they will have one entry for 5-tuner DVRs. You get what's in the warehouse, whether it's a refurbed HR21-100 or a new HR24-500.
Good thing there are retailers who are willing to help you get exactly what you want.
And in the case of where there really is a functionally different aspect, like built in OTA or 3D, they have a procedure for that.
I'd think that there would be something similar (or hope so), for the HR44. If someone had one, and it got replaced with an HR34, it is very possible that functions won't work because the 34 lacks the wifi.
However, if I need a replacement on my 34, feel free to send me a 44
The HR20/21/22/23 is mostly 2005/2006 architecture/technology.
The HR24 is 2009 technology.
The HR44 is 2012 technology.
Retailers such as Solid Signal can help you get exactly what you want such as an HR24-500!!!
We have owned at least one HR20, HR21, HR23, HR24 and HR34. In terms of overall performance (speed AND reliability) I'd rank them from best to worst:
HR24 (with the 500 model out ranking the 100 by a hair)
HR34 (we have not experienced many of the issues reported by others)
HR20 (this was our main viewing platform until recently)
HR21 (this unit is okay with the base drive, but with a 1TB external it slowed to crawl)
HR23 (most unreliable unit we've had - it died within 6 months of activation)
We rarely watch TV via the HR34 - it is mostly used as a server to the other DVRs and receivers. While we have external 1 TB drives on both our HR24s and 1 HR21, we are running the HR34 with the internal drive only. Currently, our main viewing platform is a HR24-500, with at least half of all recordings viewed being sourced from the HR34. In our experience, the HR34 is ever so slightly slower than the HR24, but both units are very acceptable. The HR24-100 exhibits some small anomalies in trick play (mainly that the 3X FFWD seems faster than 3X at times) but is otherwise a good performer.
Saying they are "functionally equivalent" is still a true statement. A Corvette is functionally equivalent to a Chevette. Function is what they do, not how well they do it. Aside from 20's not supporting 3D, and having built-in OTA, all the other 2x series models have all the same features after you add an AM21 OTA tuner. If the dvr were hidden from view, most would not be able to tell the difference unless they noticed a speed difference. But I'd bet most couldn't tell the difference between a 21, 22, or 23 model. Since the 20's, and 24's are slightly faster by most reports, someone might be able to say they can pick it out, but not 100% of the time.
Yeah, I've had the same conversations with D* CSRs. And I usually end up logically convincing them that they are wrong. Oddly, the CMG folks tend to agree with me.
Problem with using that statement is that, in using it, folks who don't know better believe it and that just allows it to endure.
I think what D* means is that any HR is the equal of any other HR, barring the size of the internal drives. By adhering to their policy of giving an HR24 for an HR24 when it comes down to replacing them seems to give more credence to my opinion.
There are differences that are clear and differences that are not so clear. I do agree with you.
With the exception of the 34 (we don't have one), I totally agree. My 23 only lasted a week, you were fortunate.
If you've read my posts about any HR ending with 100 before the 24-100s, you know how much dislike I have for the 100s. But, surprisingly, I find myself using one of my 3 HR24-100s an awful lot. I was horrified when I got the first 24-100 and wouldn't even put a large HDD on it. Stuck it in my wife's bedroom (she snores so badly you'd think a chainsaw was running) and forgot about it. Then she wanted more capacity and I put an owned 24-500 in that room with a 2TB internal in it. Problem solved. I took that 24-100 downstairs to my hidey-hole and put a 2TB in a TT dock and it has performed so well that I can't believe it. I even bought one for ~ $75 on eBay. Performs beautifully with a 2TB drive in it. Yet another bias wiped out... :lol:
I do like the 500s and have 6 of them.
Speed is a "function". I've said the same things you've just posted to argue for my point.
Sorry Rich, I have to disagree with you on that one. A mousetrap is still a mousetrap, there are better mousetraps...but they are still mousetraps. Its like the difference between wants and needs. You need it to play and record, etc....you want it to do it as fast as possible.
I 100% agree that certain models are faster than others and they would be more desirable to have, but they are still functionally equivalent. I guess I dont see how anyone can disagree with pure and simple facts. Are we using different dictionaries for the term "functionally equivalent"?